The Newest Right-Wing Smear on Chomsky...

One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky's work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich" and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest one percent. The American tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor -- like eighty percent of the population -- pay off the rich."

But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning" set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

The smear drew a deliciously devastating rejoinder in the comments section at the end of the article from Canadian Stephen Downes:

This article is a rather straightforward (and fairly boring) instance of the logical fallacy known as Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

'For example, when one is arguing 'Jack is a murderer', Jack or Jack's defendent says 'You're a murderer too'. The response is only blaming the claimer for the same thing he/she did as well. This doesn't refute the fact Jack is a murderer, but only draws away the attention by involving another person.' More here.

It is worth noting that, if the measures proposed by Chomsky are accepted, that Chomsky would then be subject to the same conditions as everyone else. So Chomsky is in fact willing to give up the advantages gained by having a trust, but rather than take unilateral action (which is not in any way entailed by his position) is lobbying in such a way as to change the law to reflect this.

Presumably the author of this article knows that this is an old and tired fallacy, a well-worn version of the old saw that 'socialists must be poor', one that has no grounding in logic or reason, and reflects, therefore, yet another instance of sleazy argumentation on TCS.

As a sidenote, let me observe that what is really stunning is that Chomsky has only two million dollars to put in trust, despite more than four decades of participation in the retirement program offered by MIT, one of the nation's leading and richest universities, and despite his enormous book sales around the world. One explanation for why his net worth is so modest for someone of his age, profession, and accomplishment may be that he in fact has given substantial sums away. (Another explanation may be the legendary poor performance of TIAA/CREF funds!)